ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2021
Experience of Two Different Techniques of Medial Epicanthoplasty with Four-Point Homologous Design: A Cohort Study.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimizing Postoperative Scars in Epicanthoplasty: A Concise Review.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious methods have been introduced to eliminate the epicanthus; however, there are no clear guidelines to determine the optimal technique for epicanthus. We aimed to investigate the clinical effect of modified Z-plasty and modified Y-V flap on epicanthus and report our experience.
methodsMedical records, including photographic information and scar score, of 81 eyes of 43 patients with congenital epicanthus were collected. All patients underwent epicanthus correction surgery by the modified Z-plasty or modified Y-V flap methods with a four-point design from January 2018 to December 2019 in Shanghai Ninth People's hospital and completed a follow-up of at least 6 months. The cosmetic outcome was evaluated in terms of by photographic evaluation and scar score, and the structural outcome was assessed by intercanthal distance (ICD) and palpebral fissure length, inner canthal angle, the canthal tilt angle. The results of two surgical techniques were compared and analyzed.
resultsThe cosmetic outcome of both group is good in both groups. ICD is smaller and inner canthal angle is larger in modified Z-plasty group, compared to modified Y-V flap group, respectively (P < 0.05). Patients with severe epicanthus in the modified Z-plasty group showed greater improvement in structural outcomes than in the modified Y-V flap group (P < 0.05), while those with mild epicanthus in the modified Y-V flap group showed more improvement in ICD than those in the modified Z-plasty group (P < 0.05). By 6 months, scarring in the modified Z-plasty group was more hypertrophic and obvious compared to the modified Y-V flap group (P < 0.05).
conclusionModified Y-V flap technique caused less scarring. Conversely, the modified Z-plasty technique was more efficient in shortening the ICD and increasing inner canthal angle. While modified Z-plasty reconstruction is more suitable for patients with severe epicanthus, the modified Y-V flap is more suitable for patients with mild epicanthus. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.